SOME ARGUMENTS TO CONSIDER IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE:WHY THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE PRESERVED

A Paper Presented toDr. George Worgul

and Classfor

THEO 677Spring 2012

By

Lanny Wilson

SOME ARGUMENTS TO CONSIDER IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE:WHY THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE PRESERVED1

Introduction

Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) is the most hotly debated and controversial topic facing2

American culture today (with the possible exception of abortion), creating vociferous reactions

both for and against. On the one hand, proponents for SSM argue it is morally necessary and its

rejection shows the homophobic and bigoted nature of the opponents to SSM. On the other hand,

opponents to SSM argue that homosexuality is inherently wrong and thus legal precedent should

not be established to canonize corrupt behavior. Both approaches are wrong headed and create

more heat than light. In opposition to the proponent of SSM, it is possible to argue against SSM

without being homophobic or bigoted. Against the opponent of SSM, it is not necessary to

address the morality of homosexuality in order to uphold a “traditional” view of marriage. There3

is a middle path which this essay will attempt. I will not address the (im)morality of

This paper has been written in conjunction with Jeff Schooley who is taking the approach that Same-Sex1

Marriage should be legalized. Since we were assigned the same topic, we thought it best to present two opposing

arguments in a pros v. cons format. We have taken our own approaches to the topic. Schooley’s approach is more

biblical and theoretical, while my approach is more sociological. There are some points of interaction between our

works, but they are largely complementary rather than directly competitive or head-on.

Some people object to the phrase “same-sex marriage” as they see this being an oxymoronic expression.2

However, I find this expression wholly appropriate for what its proponents seek – a legal marriage of same-sex

couples, with all of the rights and legal privileges in which is entailed for traditional marriages.

I use the term “traditional” in the sense that marriages culturally and historically have been between men3

and women – and in opposition to marriages of same-sex couples. I do not mean “traditional” in a narrow America-

in-the-past-400-years sense.

1

2

homosexuality per se, but rather argue that it is reasonable not to allow SSM to become law. Put4

another way, it is reasonable to prohibit SSM whether homosexuality is moral or not. My

argument will proceed by examining mostly social reasons for maintaining a traditional view of

marriage. SSM will alter the meaning, benefits, and purpose of marriage as well as have

detrimental side-effects on society as a whole. Next, I will respond to some arguments commonly

put forward in favor of SSM. The essay concludes with some summary remarks on this debate.

As a Christian it is customary to use the Bible as an authoritative source in discussing

important moral and/or societal issues. However, for the purposes of this essay, the biblical text

will not be used. There are two reasons for this. First, the Bible simply does not speak to the5

issue of SSM in our contemporary context. The Old Testament in Jewish legal code is pretty well

set against homosexual relations (at least male homosexual relations) and thus does not allow for

SSM. The New Testament also says nothing regarding SSM. There are the commonly debated

verses on homosexuality in the New Testament (assuming that is what those texts are referring to

– cf., Rom. 1:21-32; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10). If these texts are not addressing a contemporary

understanding of homosexuality, then the New Testament is silent in regards to homosexuality

and also SSM. Second, the biblical texts, both Old and New Testament, seem to simply assume

traditional marriage. All references to marriage are traditional (heterosexual). This however only

I do not want to be too absolutist in my conclusion. Hence, I am only trying to prove the softer claim that4

prohibiting SSM is reasonable. This in-and-of itself does not therefore entail the conclusion that allowing SSM is

unreasonable. That claim must be proved on its own merits. I will however argue that the speculated side-effects of

allowing SSM should mitigate against its legality. This is in-line with Rutgers professor David Popenoe’s suggestion

that “if certain political goals of the organized homosexual community are not in society’s best interest, it is

reasonable that they be challenged.” David Popenoe, War Over the Family (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Pub.,

2005), 83.

Jeff Schooley will be interacting with the biblical text at length. While technically, Schooley and I agree on5

my two reasons for not interacting with the Bible, he uses this as an opportunity to draw theological themes that may

allow justification for SSM.

3

tells us what was practiced for those of which the Bible speaks. Without an explicit rejection of

SSM, SSM could still be acceptable. However, if the Bible is against homosexuality in general,

then it would also be against SSM in particular. Since I am not arguing the morality of

homosexuality I am not relying on the biblical text.

Is this approach possible? Is it possible to argue against SSM without addressing the

morality of homosexuality? I believe it is, seeing that some homosexuals have argued this point

precisely. How is it possible to take this approach? The main strategy is by discussing social6

issues, discussing what is good for society at large, rather than being absorbed in the minutia of

individual cases. The obvious downside to this approach is that the individual cases must be

addressed at some point, and must be handled in a moral manner – these are real lives after all.

Nevertheless, the needs of society at large may occasionally mitigate against an individual’s

desires.

I am not confident that a philosophical argument against SSM can take place in the

American context (see below). Hence, the social approach offers the most promising arguments

against SSM. McGill University professor Paul Nathanson (who is gay) and University of

Virginia professor Katherine K. Young (who is not) argue that the government has no “obvious

Jim Rinnert argues for civil unions for same-sex couples, not marriage. Differences between civil unions6

and marriage will take us too far beyond this essay. Suffice to say, even some homosexuals are against SSM. Jim

Rinnert, “The Trouble with Gay Marriage,” www.inthesetimes.com/article/the_trouble_with_gay_marriage (accessed

January 31, 2012). McGill University professor Paul Nathanson, likewise, is gay and argues that traditional marriage

should be upheld. His joint research and argument with University of Virginia professor Katherine K. Young will be

utilized extensively for this essay. They note that “some gay people, like some feminists, see marriage as an

inherently oppressive patriarchal institution and want no part of it.” Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young,

“Marriage à la mode: Answering the Advocates of Gay Marriage,” www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/mmmode.pdf

(accessed January 30, 2012). Their essay was a presentation delivered on the campus of Emory University in 2003.

Unfortunately, the document has no set page numbers.

4

or compelling reason to promote” SSM. Rather, heterosexuality “must be fostered” as the7

cultural norm and not considered as just “merely allowed as one ‘lifestyle choice’ among many.”8

Additionally, they note that this fostering inherently creates a “privileged” status for heterosexual

couples – and society cannot survive without this privileging. Their conclusion, the “politically9

inconvenient fact is that society needs a specifically heterosexual contribution more than any

homosexual counterpart.” That is, society needs to promote heterosexual relationships in order10

to survive. Homosexual relationships may be allowed (tolerated?) within a society, but as these

relationships are not conducive directly to that society’s survival, they are, thus, not as valuable

as heterosexual relationships.

Today, the argument against SSM cannot be fought along philosophical lines.

Philosophically, there is no reason not to allow SSM given the cultural understanding of what

marriage is. Though many people have a nostalgic sense of what traditional marriage is, in11

practice they hold a non-traditional understanding. Marriage, as popularly understood today, is

mere “coupling.” It is a sign of commitment from two people that have an affection for one

another. If you feel that you are in love, then you should get married. If you “fall out of love,”

then you should get a divorce. There is no permanence to the bonding in matrimony. This

understanding has developed in the past one hundred years or so. First, Freud taught us that

Nathanson and Young, n.6.7

Ibid.8

Ibid.9

Ibid., n.12.10

By “philosophical” I mean popular level philosophy. There are some natural law and philosophical11

anthropological arguments against homosexuality (and thus SSM), but these will not be considered in this essay.

5

sexual expression is the pinnacle of human existence. Next, Planned parent-hood freed the

procreative and sexual link in marriage. People could have sex without worrying about children.

Later, Playboy magazine popularized the ideals that sex is casual and that men should keep their

options open. By the time “no-fault” divorce became law in the late sixties and seventies, the

cultural attitude of what marriage is had already shifted from a permanent bonding of man and

woman for the procreation and rearing of children, to mere coupling and sentimentality. No-fault

divorce did not cause the current popular view of marriage (though it does reinforce it), rather it

is the result of a change in attitude from the previous seventy years. Nathanson and Young note12

that during this time period American culture saw the rise of “excessive individualism”;13

hedonism; and anti-intellectualism. They insightfully state: 14

Gay people [did not] invent radical individualism. Although they have adopted itsuccessfully, this political strategy had already become pervasive in the straight world.The campaign for gay marriage was inconceivable, in fact, until both hedonism andradical individualism had already prevailed in the larger society. The chickens have comehome to roost, as it were, and straight people have only themselves to thank for any direconsequences. 15

“Divorce, moreover, is no longer acknowledged by everyone as a serious social problem. . . . it has been12

reinterpreted as a personal problem or even as an opportunity for personal growth. . . . many people no longer feel

constrained by anything – not the safety or interests of others and sometimes not even legal considerations – in their

relentless search for personal pleasure (often known as ‘self-realization’). There have always been hedonists, of

course, but hedonism has seldom been tacitly accepted or even publicly celebrated by so many people.” Nathanson

and Young.

“Individualism has . . . come to mean . . . ‘anything goes,’” Ibid.13

“Expressing something is not the same as legitimating it. For that, the academics must be called in. Who14

would legitimate self-indulgence? No one would. But our society has turned all political debates into demands for

rights and based these demands, at least partly, on the need for ‘self-esteem.’ In other words, feeling good about

yourself (and whatever group provides you with personal identity) trumps any rational argument about the needs of

society as a whole. . . . Given this lack of respect for reason, let alone intellectual integrity, it is hardly surprising to

find that many citizens are already prepared to be [sic] believe that ‘change’ is a synonym for ‘progress,’ and that

anyone who opposes an innovation should be ridiculed for ‘fear of change.’” Ibid.

Ibid., n.35.15

6

Traditional marriage died philosophically in America several decades ago. Today, traditional

marriage is on life-support and can only be resuscitated along sociological lines. I suppose a

philosophical or religious revival of some sort could take place reinvigorating traditional

marriage, but given how long it takes ideas to filter into society, this is not likely.

Historically and cross-culturally, marriage exhibits three dimensions: universal; nearly

universal; and variable. Seeing these differences can tell us something about the human condition

in regards to the institution of marriage. It is important to look at marriage historically and cross-

culturally because if we only consider one form of it, the variables of that one culture may mask

universal aspects of marriage. Likewise, some universal aspects may be considered as variables.16

Nathanson and Young note the “universal” features of marriage are: it encourages procreation;

recognizes interdependence of men and women; defines eligible partners; supported by

authorities and incentives; has a public dimension; provides support for men, women, and their

children. Likewise, they note the “nearly universal” features: emphasizes durable relationships17

between biological parents; mutual affection and companionship; familial (and/or political)

alliances; encourages intergenerational mingling. “Variable” features are also present:18

endogamy (marriage within one group); exogamy (marriage outside a group); change in social

“It could be argued that focusing on universals and nearly universals produces the methodological16

problem of ‘essentialism.’ But this is a false problem for three reasons. First, there really is an empirical basis for the

existence of the features. Second, using inductive reason to discern patterns is a fundamental characteristic of

scholarship. And third, any phenomenon so common as to be universal or nearly universal surely reveals something

basic in the human condition. Because the most common biological tendency for human beings is heterosexuality –

our species reproduces sexually, which has an evolutionary advantage over the asexual reproduction of some other

species – and because heterosexual culture (especially marriage) is the necessary complement of heterosexual

biology, every human society has actively fostered it.” Ibid., n.9.

Nathanson and Young.17

Ibid.18

7

status (either up or down); arranged marriages; dowry (paid by bride’s family); bride price (paid

by groom’s family); sexual equality; sexual hierarchy; number of children (if any); etc. It is only19

recently that the universal and nearly universal aspects of marriage have been questioned. The20

fact is,

Every society needs a public heterosexual culture, specifically marriage, to foster fivethings: (a) the birth and rearing of children . . . ; (b) the bonding between men and womenin order to provide an appropriate setting for maturing children . . . ; (c) the bondingbetween men and children so that men are likely to become active participants in familylife; (d) some healthy form of masculine identity . . . ; and (e) the transformation ofadolescents into sexually responsible adults. 21

With this understanding of how the discussion is being framed, how we arrived where we are

culturally, and how marriage has historically been viewed, we can now consider specific

arguments and counter arguments for SSM.

Some Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

There is a guiding sub-text for the argument of this essay and that is that the traditional

“nuclear” family is better for society than any alternative. As such, I have arranged the22

“Alternatives to marriage are celebrated in some societies (as in the case of celibate monks, for instance,19

or shamans) and tolerated in others (such as single people or gay couples) but only when the larger society is in no

danger of failing to reproduce itself.” Ibid.

Popenoe states “Across time and cultures, fathers have always been considered essential – and not just for20

their sperm. Indeed, until today, no known society ever thought of fathers as potentially unnecessary. Marriage and

the nuclear family – mother, father, and children – are the most universal social institutions in existence.” Popenoe,

War Over the Family, 119. Yet, this is precisely what advocates of SSM want to change.

Nathanson and Young.21

Popenoe notes, “Nuclear familism and homosexualism as lifestyles incorporate contradictory values and22

views of the world. It would be a moral contradiction for society to affirm and promote the nuclear family, with its

basis in heterosexuality and its generation and nurturance of children, while at the same time affirming and

promoting all of the values of the homosexual subculture. Fully aware of this contradiction, the homosexual

community has assumed a leading role in attempts to redefine the family under the banner of ‘family diversity’ and to

cast doubt on the validity and importance of heterosexuality.” Popenoe, War Over the Family, 83.

8

arguments against SSM under four headings. First, we will examine how SSM alters the meaning

of marriage by exploring how marriage has historically and culturally been understood as an

institution between males and females, how it opens the door to polygamy and incest, and how it

will redefine our views on monogamy. Second, explore how SSM will alter the benefits of

marriage in that marriage brings men and women together as well as society. Third, investigate

how SSM alters the purpose of marriage in showing that marriage is supposed to replace

members of society and raise “well-rounded” children who will be productive citizens. Finally,

consider possible negative affects on society that do not deal with marriage directly by

examining: how legalizing SSM will affect children; the detrimental effect it will have on males

in society; the limiting of free speech; the stunting of academic research; the polarization of

society; and how special “concessions” for reproduction will given.

Same-Sex Marriage Alters the Meaning of Marriage

Historically and culturally marriage has been understood as male and female

Patrick Lee and Robert P. George make the following observation: “A husband and wife

are complementary in a unique sense: they constitute a single subject (forming a bodily and

personal unity) uniquely suited to bear and rear their own biological children; they are inherently

suited to form a union that naturally (if all goes well) enlarges into family.” There are no23

examples in recorded history (until the last couple of decades) in which a society has accepted

SSM on a cultural scale. There are a few examples of SSM in isolated and limited

Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, “Quaestio Disputata: What Male-Female Complementarity Makes23

Possible: Marriage as a Two-in-One-Flesh Union.” Theological Studies 69 (2008): 661.

9

circumstances. Four popular examples of SSM and homosexual behavior across history and24

cultures are examples in some west African tribes, Emperor Nero, the Native American

berdache, and some historical Buddhist views on homosexuality. Do these examples offer a

counter argument that marriage has customarily been understood between men and women?

I do not think that these examples prove the widespread acceptance of SSM from history

or cultures. First, these are isolated examples. From the myriad of cultures from which we have

records these are put forward as the “best” instances of SSM from the past. Using Nathanson25

and Young’s understanding between universal and variable examples of marriage, SSM in these

cases seems to be more of a variable rather than a universal rule. Second, these instances of SSM

do not reflect widespread acceptance even in those cultures. For example, women who “marry”

women in west Africa has more the earmarks of a business transaction than a traditional

marriage, it is not usually love or sex that bring them together. Some of these women are

“married” as surrogates for their husband to father children. Nor is Nero a good example seeing26

how he generally liked to upset social conventions. The Native American berdache was a very27

specific status. They only “married” wealthier males who were already involved in an existing

Clellan Ford and Frank Beach looked at over 70 different cultures and determined that 64% adopted and24

accepted some form of homosexual behavior. Most of the cultures looked at tended to be tribal in nature. Hence,

Native American, Islander, African, and Serbian groups are mostly mentioned. Clellan S. Ford and Frank A Beach,

Patterns of Sexual Behavior (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1951), 130-134.

This is even acknowledging the widespread practice of homosexuality in some of these cultures. There are25

also some historical societies that strongly condemned homosexual practices, see Ford and Beach, 129-130. If one

wants to appeal to cultures that accept homosexuality for justification of homosexual relationships, then why could

cultures that do not accept homosexuality not also be taken as normative?

Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting26

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 50-51.

Nero famously used Christians to “light” his garden by burning them. He was known to murder people27

routinely, burned Rome, and appointed a horse to the Senate. Not exactly a sterling representative for SSM. Ibid., 50.

10

heterosexual (or polygamous) relationship. Berdaches never married another berdache. The

berdache was considered a woman, and this status was generally ridiculed (or seen as a curiosity)

by the public. Berdaches were primarily servants and their tenure was usually short-lived.28

Likewise, the Buddhist acceptance of homosexual relationships applied only to males under

specific circumstances. These were relationships between an adult (the active partner) and an

adolescent male(s) (the passive partner), and were short-lived. The relationship would only last

until the adolescent “came of age.” Even after participating in this behavior, both of these males

would customarily marry (women) and begin families. The fact is, there are no known29

examples in history of a culture accepting SSM on the scale that is being proposed today even

when that society accepted homosexual practices.30

SSM opens the door to polygamy and incest

The argument for SSM is essentially that two responsible and loving adults should have

the freedom to do what they want and this committed and loving relationship should be

acknowledged by society as a legitimate familial unit. However, the question to be asked is why

only two responsible and loving adults? What if there are three or four responsible and loving

adults? Can these responsible and loving adults be family members? Can a father marry his adult

daughter (or son)? Can grandma or grandpa be in on the relationship? The issue facing

See Suzanne G. Frayser, Varieties of Sexual Experience: Anthropological Perspective on Human28

Sexuality (New York: Human Relations Area File Press, 1985), 89. And Stanton and Maier, 51.

Dharmachari Jñanavira, “Homosexuality in the Japanese Buddhist Tradition” 29

www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html (accessed February 6, 2012).

See Ford and Beach, 130-134 for examples of groups that regularly practice homosexual acts, but even30

when homosexual “marriage” is present, it does not look anything like what proponents of SSM are suggesting

today.

11

proponents of SSM is that the very same arguments that are used to justify SSM are the ones

used to justify polygamy and incest. Polygamy even has the advantage over SSM. Historically31

and cross-culturally there are more examples and reasons to accept polygamy than SSM.

Nathanson and Young state “It is by no means outlandish, therefore, to suggest that the demand

of polygamous marriage would follow directly from the demand for gay marriage – especially in

view of the fact that some Muslims and Mormons would approve.”32

It is conceivable that our society may accept polygamous relationships (given there are

popular television shows highlighting these relationships). Regardless of the counter-argument

that polygamy hurts women, the argument for polygamy is exactly the same as the one for SSM.

Incest, likewise, follows from the exact same argument for SSM. The counter-arguments against

incest are different (and powerful), but if the argument for SSM is so overpowering that no

reason can be given to show that it should not be granted, then the same goes for incest. “Only

political expediency would allow advocates of gay marriage to deny that.” Social taboos have33

reasons. Incest is such a taboo precisely because the state cannot keep children from the adults

that raise them on a massive scale. Hence, the social taboo on incest is in place to help raise well-

Some people want to add bestiality as well. I do not. This essay is assuming relationships are31

“consensual.” Despite how one may feel towards their beloved goat or cow, it is notoriously difficult to know an

animal’s commitment to the relationship or whether it is “consenting” at all regarding sexual advances. As such, I

will only consider human relationships.

Nathanson and Young. In fact, the family of the popular television show Sister Wives has recently filed a32

lawsuit challenging the state’s bigamy laws. See “‘Sister Wives’ Lawsuit: Federal Judge Rules TV Family Can

Question Bigamy Statute,” www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/sister-wives-law-suit-bigamy_n_1255622.html

(accessed February 5, 2012).

Nathanson and Young.33

12

adjusted children. But why not allow incest among adults? If the arguments for SSM are valid34

and compelling, then so too are the arguments for incest.

One of the arguments that Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler make (in justifying

homosexual acts, not necessarily SSM) is that homosexuals have “lived experiences of

monogamous, loving, committed, [relationships] . . . , these couples have confronted it

experientially and they tell us that they do experience personal complementarity in and through

homosexual acts. They add that these acts also facilitate the integration of their human sexuality,

thereby realizing the basic good of self-integration.” That is, same-sex couples experience35

committed and deeply complex emotional ties to one another. Why cannot this deep seated love

be expressed in a marriage recognized by society? Lee and George respond, “The devastating

point against [Salzman and Lawler] is precisely that polyamorists, polygamists (including more

than a few women in formal or informal polygamous relationships), and even many adulterers

and unmarried teens report positive feelings about their sexual acts – not just physical feelings

but complex feelings about what their acts seem to them to contribute to personal

relationships.” Thus, if SSM is passed legally, there is no argument that can stop polyamorists.36

The arguments for SSM, polyamory, polygamy, and incest are exactly the same. The counter-

arguments are different, but the arguments in favor are the same.

Now it could be stated that this argument is the same as saying “allowing marriage opens

Stanley Kurtz, “The Libertarian Question: Incest, Homosexuality, and Adultery” in Same-Sex Marriage:34

The Moral and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004),

264.

Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler. The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology35

(Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2008), 66.

Lee and George, 654-655.36

13

the door for divorce. Should we therefore prevent marriage to avoid divorce?” Stated differently,

divorce is to marriage what polygamy and incest is to SSM, and since we marry despite divorce,

so too should SSM be legal despite polygamy and incest. There is some merit to this line of

thought. Just because a negative is made possible by the existence of a positive it does not then

follow we should not allow the positive. However, this counter-argument is ultimately flawed for

two reasons. First, societies need traditional marriages in order to survive, but societies do not

need SSM. Under a traditional sense, marriage was for the procreation and raising of children

and was permanent. Divorce was allowed, but rarely utilized. Second, divorce is due to the

breakdown of marriage, but polygamy and incest is not due to the breakdown of SSM. Indeed,

the reasons for divorce do not follow from the reasons for marriage, but the reasons for polygamy

and incest do follow from the reasons for SSM. The reasons for polygamy and incest are exactly

the same as the reasons for SSM. It therefore follows that if we legalize SSM, then we must

(logically) allow for polygamy and incest. If we (as a society) do not want to legalize polygamy

and incest, then we should not legalize SSM.

Monogamy will be abandoned or at least re-defined

Some homosexual couples are incredibly faithful to their partner and many heterosexual

couples are not faithful to theirs. However, by-and-large, married heterosexual couples are

monogamously faithful and homosexual couples (by-and-large) are not. The stereotype of the37

Michael W. Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey,” Journal of37

Sex Research 34 (1997): 170, found that 77% of men and 88% of women remained monogamously faithful during

marriage. Likewise, E. O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United

States (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994 ), 216, found that 75% of men and 85% of women remained

sexually faithful. In contrast, pro-SSM advocate Daniel Maguire admits that “homosexual men are more

promiscuous than any other group.” Daniel Maguire, “The Morality of Homosexual Marriage,” in Same-Sex

Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate eds. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus

14

promiscuous gay man became a stereotype for a reason. Statistically, homosexuals have many38

more sexual partners than heterosexuals. Whether this behavior is driven by the marginalization39

of homosexuals by society at large, strong libidos, or what-have-you, the fact remains that

homosexuals are more sexually active with a greater number of partners than heterosexuals. As40

homosexuality is becoming more accepted culturally, it will be interesting to see if this

promiscuousness continues or is tempered. 41

One trend among homosexual couples is to claim monogamy, but still have sex with

others outside the relationship. The idea is that so long as you are “open and honest” about what

you are doing with your partner, then it is still considered “monogamy.” For example, Jim and

Books, 2004), 156. Homosexual advocates David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How

Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), 252-253, determined that any gay relationship over

five years incorporated some provision for allowing multiple sexual partners.

This does not mean that all stereotypes are right, nor does it mean that stereotypes should be applied to38

any individual. It does recognize that repeated behavior in a certain demographic labels that demographic as a certain

stereotype.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New39

York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 308-309, determined that 43% of white homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners

and 28% had over 1000. Paul Van de Ven, Paul, Pamela Rodden, June Crawford, and Susan Kippax., “A

Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34

(1997): 354, determined the “modal range” of homosexual partners was 101-500 in a lifetime, with 10-15% having

between 501 to 1000, and another 10-15% over 1000 sexual partners. They further determined only 2.7% of

homosexual men have had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.

More sexual activity leads to a greater risk of STDs. The CDC has identified “men who have sex with40

men” (MSM) statistically to have a greater chance of HIV/AIDS. MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all

new cases of infections and in 2007 determined MSM were 44 to 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with

HIV/AIDS than other men. In 2008 the CDC determined that 19% (1 in 5!) of MSM in 21 major cities had

HIV/AIDS and 44% were unaware they had contracted the disease. See “HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men

Who Have Sex with Men (MSM),” www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/pdf/msm.pdf (accessed January 29, 2012).

A report out of the University of Windsor in Canada indicates that young gay men and men “new” to the41

homosexual lifestyle are enjoying a more traditional understanding of monogamy. Barry D. Adam, “Relationship

Innovation in Male Relationships” Sexualities 9 (2006): 5-26. Perhaps this trend will continue, it is too early to tell at

this point. But even here, monogamy only applied to 25% of those interviewed and these relationships were less than

3 years old.

15

Steve have been a “monogamous” couple for several years. They are “open and honest” in

regards to their sexual desires for other men, have an occasional “three-way,” and thus they have

an “open” relationship. However, “at the end of the day” they come home to one another for love

and support. Any other men they meet is simply casual sex and nothing more. We can admire

Jim and Steve for their “open and honest” commitment to one another, but this is a far cry from

what has historically been meant by “monogamy.” Yet, if SSM passes, it looks as though this

trend will continue. Couples will be said to be “monogamous” and yet have outside sexual

relationships. If society accepts SSM, then it appears society will also need to accept the idea42

that a “monogamous marriage” can include multiple sexual partners.

Alters the Benefits of Marriage

Marriage is an institution that brings men and women together

Marriage brings men and women together. Society encourages these relationships because

it is good for the growth and stability of society. However, as men do not play a major part of the

biological life cycle, their role has traditionally been encouraged more so on the rearing aspect of

parenthood. Men need to contribute to the rearing of children. Society, in turn, honors that

devotion with the term “father.” But, as the role of men in the lives of children is diminished,

there is a rise in unhealthy masculine behavior. In America about 41% of all births are out of

wedlock, and this results in a trend that glorifies single motherhood by bypassing men and their43

See Joe Kort, “Are Gay Male Couples Monogamous Ever After?” 42

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamous-ever-after (accessed

February 13, 2012).

“National Vital Statistics Report” 43

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table16

(accessed February 13, 2012). Of particular note is that 73% of African American children are born out of wedlock.

16

role as fathers. All of this has the result of systematically removing men from traditional familial

roles. This, unfortunately, is fragmenting society. Nathanson and Young note the danger, “Our

society is becoming more and more fragmented along sexual . . . lines. One possible result, in the

long run, could be a society that is polarized into separate communities of men and women,

whether gay or straight.” As men are separated from their familial role, they will in turn44

withdraw from society (See below about the effects SSM will have on males). Likewise, women

will withdraw into support and help groups. As society adopts the views that masculine and

feminine are strictly culturally determined and that men and women are interchangeable, the

fracturing of society along sexual lines is likely. Society needs men and women to come together,

but with the legitimization of SSM, there is no social institution that remains to encourage their

intermingling.

Marriage brings society together

This is not to say that men and women would absolutely avoid each other. Indeed,

hormones will still reign supreme and men and women will certainly connect. “Individuals

would come together for copulation and companionship, of course, but enduring bonds would be

seen as unnecessary restrictions on personal freedom. . . . Marriage has never before been so

heavily associated with the wants and needs of adults as individuals.” However, marriage has45

not always been viewed this way. Marriage was seen as a communal life. It raised children in

stable situations. It did not shuttle them around between parents or living situations to meet the

Nathanson and Young.44

Ibid.45

17

emotional needs of adults. A stable home-life was seen as the ideal situation in which to raise46

tomorrow’s productive citizens. As Nathanson and Young comment, marriage “has always been

heavily associated with the needs of both children (expressed as the ideal of interdependence

between men and women for the sake of children) and with those of the community (expressed

as the ideal of interdependence between men and women for the sake of society as a whole).”47

One objection to this line of thought is that social fragmentation can be better attributed

to educational or social status rather than the breakdown of marriage. While this may be true

now, this is not the case historically or cross-culturally. Even in societies that determine who you

can/cannot marry based on social status did not fragment society over this issue. Indeed marriage

among the classes was specifically for the stabilization of society (even if it was stabilized to

keep the ruling class in power). The fact is, until recently marriage was always associated with

the cohesive affect it had on society. Until recently marriage was not just about satisfying the

needs and wants of men and women, gay or straight. Separating sex from marriage and

procreation, and legitimizing it on a societal level has fractured society from individuals, parents

from children, and men from women.48

Popenoe remarks, “human cultures have used sanctions to bind men to their children, and of course the46

institution of marriage has been culture’s chief vehicle. Marriage is society’s way of signaling that the community

approves and encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children, and that the long-term relationship of the

parents is socially important.” Popenoe, War Over the Family, 119.

Nathanson and Young.47

Ibid.48

18

Alters the Purpose of Marriage

Marriage encourages the replacement of citizens for a society

Western societies are dying a slow death. In a developed society, the average woman

needs to have 2.1 children in order for the population of that society to be stable. Only two of49

the thirty-five countries in the European Union currently are at replacement levels. The United50

States is currently (barely) at replacement level and Canada has been below replacement level

since 1973. If these trends continue, there will be a significant decrease in the number of51

citizens contributing to the welfare of society. As fewer children are born, this will pose serious

challenges to public institutions that rely on a “growing” citizen base (e.g., Social Security, tax

revenues, etc.). No society can survive without heterosexual unions. “It is a truism, frequently

forgotten by large complex societies, that only societies that reproduce survive.” Without the52

encouragement and “privileging” of traditionally married couples to have and raise children,

society will eventually decline and die out. It is for this reason that societies have encouraged the

In developing countries the rate may need to be as high as 4 children per woman simply because of the49

mortality rate.

Only Iceland and Turkey are currently replacing their citizens via birth. See “Fertility Statistics,”50

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Fertility_statistics (accessed February 4, 2012).

The US as of 2009 had a replacement birthrate of 2.05 with Canada at 1.67. See “Fertility Rate,”51

www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=e

n&q=total+fertility+rate+united+states#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin

&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:CAN&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en (accessed February 4, 2012).

See also “National Vital Statistics Report” http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table16

(accessed February 13, 2012).

Maggie Gallagher, “Normal Marriage: Two Views,” in Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate eds.52

Lynn D. Wardle, Mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 17.

19

traditional notion of marriage – it helps society survive.53

Maggie Gallagher has commented that marriage and family are rooted in obligation and

dependence, not equality and autonomy. Family is for the raising of children to become

tomorrow’s citizens. She says, “Marriage is the means by which societies do their best to secure

fathers for children and to encourage lovers to make babies in the best possible circumstances.”54

This view, however, is not popular today. Being that most person’s notions of what marriage is

approaches “coupling” there is a skepticism that marriage is (ultimately) about having and raising

children. Teresa Collett has insightfully remarked, “With marriage no longer presumed to be

enduring, sex no longer limited to the marital bed, and children no longer understood to be the

natural consequence of engaging in sexual intercourse, it should come as no surprise that

skepticism greets those who argue that the state’s recognition of marriage is inextricably tied to

procreation and family.” This skepticism, while natural in our cultural climate, ultimately55

breaks-down society’s ability and interest to survive.

“Birthrate is already falling below replacement level [in Canada], as it is in almost every Western country,53

but the situation could get much worse. Why? Because, as we say, no public support would be available to encourage

the creation or rearing of children by straight couples. And we could expect even more absentee fathers. Why?

Because this would be a society preoccupied by the primacy of equality, by the rights of adults over those of

children, and by the notion that men and women are interchangeable. In that society, the importance of fathers in

family life would be even more obscure to most people than it already is.” Nathanson and Young. Of course, one of

the main assumptions of this argument is that one’s society is worth preserving.

Maggie Gallagher, “A Reality Waiting to Happen: A Response to Evan Wolfson,” in Marriage and Same-54

Sex Unions: A Debate eds. Lynn D. Wardle, mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge

(Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 12.

Teresa Stanton Collett, “Should Marriage Be Privileged? The State’s Interest in Childbearing Unions,” in55

Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate eds. Lynn D. Wardle, Mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David

Orgon Coolidge (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 159.

20

Marriage is for the purpose of raising well rounded children

Perhaps somewhat obvious, but none-the-less important, is the fact that children need

parents. They need both a mother and a father in order to be born. This is the natural order of56 57

things and no one debates this. The debate is whether children need a mother and a father in

order to be reared. Is a mother-mother or father-father relationship just as conducive to a child’s

development? In arguing for traditional marriage it is important to note a couple of things. First,

as Nathanson and Young point out “One thing that they [children] surely require is at least one

parent of each sex. . . . the sexes are not quite interchangeable. . . . both sexes are distinctive.

Boys cannot learn how to become healthy men from even the most loving mother (or pair of

mothers) alone. And girls cannot learn how to become healthy women from even the most loving

father (or pair of fathers) alone.” Men and women contribute something unique to the role of58

parenting.59

Second, if SSM is legalized then the law will be affirming “that children do not need

mothers and fathers, and that marriage has nothing to do with babies.” Children will be seen as60

a contractual agreement not as a biological consequence. As Maggie Gallagher as argued,

Popenoe states, “the main social purpose for the institution of marriage is the insurance of family stability56

for children. . . . This institutional purpose, and therefore the importance of the social institution in general, would

surely be compromised by incorporating the marriage of same-sex couples.” Popenoe, War Over the Family, 84.

For now at least. Once reproductive technologies advance far enough, it is likely that children will be born57

only from a mother or a father.

Nathanson and Young.58

Men “bring an array of unique and irreplaceable qualities that women do not ordinarily bring [to raising59

children]. . . . Recent research . . . into the father’s role in childrearing. . . . shows that in almost all of their

interactions with children, fathers do things a little differently from mothers.” Popenoe, War Over the Family, 122.

Gallagher, “A Reality Waiting to Happen,” 12 (emphasis added).60

21

advocates for SSM “have diligently pushed the idea that contract, not biology, creates parental

obligations, in part because it is the only possible way for same-sex couples to have children

together. The old stubborn reality that the people who make the baby are its parents must be

shoved aside . . . . The people who thought up the baby are its real parents.” The consequences61

of this line of thinking, however, is that neither the biological father nor the mother are a child’s

parent(s) if they do not want to be – the biological parents have no legal connections to the baby.

This puts the welfare of children at risk. If parenthood is based on who wants babies, then why62

do we chase men down to pay child support when they clearly do not want the child?63

Third, children want to know who their parents are biologically. This is a source of

personal identity and many adopted children go to great lengths to either contact or discover their

biological parents. Children, whether adopted or born from sperm banks, surrogacy, or any other

method that detaches them from their biological parents, can experience this separation as a

source of frustration and anguish. Lee and George point out that “A child has a natural need for64

the love and care of her own biological mother and her own biological father. Since we are

bodily beings, with bodily connections to a mother, a father, grandparents, and perhaps uncles,

aunts, brothers, and sisters, and since persons are not mere isolated individuals, part of our

Gallagher, “Normal Marriage,” 16.61

Ibid., 17.62

Ibid.63

Nathanson and Young also note that in regards to adoption, “It is one thing to admire adoptive parents for64

replacing unavoidably absent parents (motivated by altruism on behalf of children) but another thing to argue that

adoptive parenting should be considered an ‘alternative lifestyle’ (motivated by the desire of adults).” Nathanson and

Young.

22

personal identity consists in these relationships.” If this is the case, then policies should not be65

adopted that will intentionally detach children from (both) their biological parents. Having said

that, even if SSM is not passed, it may still be beneficial to let same-sex couples adopt children

(depending on the social need). Same-sex parents may not be the “best” choice for a child, but66

it is assuredly better than the alternative (i.e., orphanages, foster homes, etc). See the section

below regarding information about the effects of children growing up in same-sex households.

Finally, we know the effects on children that grow up without fathers. We have decades

worth of data detailing the destructive consequences of children growing up in a single-

parenthood home. Single parenting (usually mothers, and sometimes by choice) is considered a67

“lifestyle.” “The message to fathers and their children is that men have no distinctive,68

necessary, and publicly valued function in family life. And the psychological and sociological

results of fatherless children on a massive scale . . . are not exactly encouraging.” One of the69

Lee and George, 661. 65

I am not sure it would be wise to put same-sex couples “ahead” of heterosexual couples looking to adopt,66

if it is the case that children need both male and female influences in their development. Popenoe says something

similar in that it may be beneficial to create something “like” marriage with some of the benefits of married couples,

but he stops short of saying homosexual couples should have full marriage benefits. Popenoe, War Over the Family,

84.

Popenoe lists some of the problems attending fatherlessness in children: “crime and delinquency;67

premature sexuality and out-of-wedlock births to teenagers; deteriorating educational achievement; depression,

substance abuse, and alienation among adolescents; and the growing number of women and children in poverty.”

Popenoe, War Over the Family, 117.

Popenoe laments, “few people doubt the fundamental importance of mothers. But fathers? More and68

more, the question of whether fathers are really necessary is being raised. . . . to the degree that fathers are still

thought necessary, fatherhood is said by many to be merely a social role that others can play.” Popenoe, War Over

the Family, 117.

Nathanson and Young. It is fathers that disappear. Gallagher explains, “Once we sever, conceptually, the69

sexual alliance and the parenting alliance, we sever children from their uncontested claim on their parents’ –

especially their fathers’ – care and protection. It is the fathers who disappear, because while fathers and mothers are

equally beloved and important to their children, fatherhood and motherhood are not equally natural or inevitable.”

Gallagher, “Normal Marriage,” 17.

23

problems with passing SSM is that it will legitimize the idea that fatherless homes are an

acceptable consequence of adult emotional needs. The problem is the message that is sent.70

There will be mothers (gay and straight) that love their children, just as there will be fathers (gay

and straight) that also love their children. But “Children require more than love from their

parents, whether gay or straight.” They need both fathers and mothers. This has led Nathanson71 72

and Young to believe that “The welfare of children is an afterthought for advocates of gay

marriage and single parenting, not something that takes priority over their own interests. . . .

[children’s] needs are hardly ever taken seriously in the debate over gay marriage; they have

become bystanders in a debate over the rights of adults.” They go on to state in a lengthy73

passage:

The advocates of gay marriage are interested primarily or even only in the interests of gayadults. . . . the primary beneficiaries [of SSM] are still adults, not children. Which is whyadvocates of gay marriage try to argue that children would at least be no worse off withgay parents than with straight ones (or better off with good gay parents than with badstraight ones). The social-science evidence is sometimes ambiguous, but we do know bynow that two parents are better for children than one, that families with both mothers andfathers are better for children than those with only mothers or only fathers, and thatbiological parents have some advantages over adoptive ones. That these facts are eitherignored or trivialized by advocates of gay marriage – and of single parents, by the way,

“Even when other factors (such as race and intelligence are) are [sic] accounted for, it remains true that70

boys without fathers are approximately twice as likely (and boys who grow up in stepfamilies are approximately

three times as likely) as other boys to end up in jail by their early thirties.” Nathanson and Young, n.18.

Nathanson and Young.71

Popenoe states that it is “decidedly worse for a child to lose a father in the modern, voluntary way than72

through death.” Popenoe, War Over the Family, 118. SSM would encourage children to “lose” fathers in the

“modern, voluntary way.”

Nathanson and Young.73

24

whether gay or straight – says something about concern for children in our time.74

Traditionally marriage was for the training and rearing of tomorrow’s citizens. It has historically

been acknowledged that this is best done in a situation in which the biological mother and father

of the child are united in marriage. If SSM is legalized, the message sent is that mothers and

fathers are not necessary for the raising of children and that parenting is a matter of contractual

choice not biological consequence.75

Other Possible Negative Effects of Allowing Same-Sex Marriage

G. K. Chesterton is famous for having made the point that before we go knocking down

fences we better be sure why they were put there in the first place. Traditional marriage is such76

a fence, and before we irreversibly knock it over, we best understand the possible consequences

of such an action. Examining the possible negative effects of overturning a long standing

institution is the morally right thing to do. Advocates of SSM “should be aware that they are77

considering one of the most serious [social] experiments in human history.” In their haste,78

clamoring for “equal rights,” SSM activists are not considering society at large. As Nathanson

Nathanson and Young. Popenoe says the same thing, “on the whole, two parents – a father and a mother –74

are better for a child than one parent. There are to be sure, many factors that complicate this simple proposition . . .

But such exceptions do not invalidate the rule any more than the fact that some three-pack-a-day smokers live to a

ripe old age casts doubt on the dangers of cigarettes.” Popenoe, War Over the Family, 120. That is, despite some

exceptions, in general children do better with a mother and father than any other combination.

Popenoe states that as a society we should be tolerant of homosexual practices, but that does not mean we75

should make a full affirmation to their lifestyle. “Societies dedicated to the promotion of strong families and child-

centeredness should not at the same time advocate or affirm all of the values associated with homosexuality as it is

expressed today.” Popenoe, War Over the Family, 83.

G. K. Chesterton, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1930), 27.76

Nathanson and Young.77

Ibid.78

25

and Young state, “Advocates of gay marriage have made no serious attempt to consider the

possible harms and object to those who want more time to assess the evidence from other periods

or other cultures.”79

Any public policy action must account for the risks. The danger is that it may result in a

paralyzation of policy making as we are forever searching and seeking possible negative side

effects. This is possible, but I think unlikely. Further, the more serious the change being80

proposed, the more necessary it is to explore possible side effects. Ideas have consequences, and

unseen consequences of well-intentioned laws can have dramatic and detrimental effects:

Forty years ago, divorce laws were changed to help the few who were trapped in seriouslytroubled marriages. Divorce is now as common as marriage itself. Worse, we havereplaced one problem with many others. We have not only severely weakened marriagebut also, as a result, greatly increased the number of divorces, the number of single-parentfamilies, and the number of children dependent on social-service agencies. . . . The fact isthat we have no better understanding of what might happen as a result of legalizing gaymarriage than we did about making divorce easier.81

Before we (as a society) make one of the most substantial societal changes in history, it is

prudent to make sure that we fully understand, comprehend, and accept the possible outcomes.

We owe our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren that much.

Ibid.79

Indeed, given the many questionable laws that do get passed, perhaps a little caution would be beneficial.80

Nathanson and Young. Gallagher makes the same point, the call for SSM “redefined as a personal right81

that only hatred and unreason prevent from coming to fruition, looks startlingly similar to the juggernaut for the

divorce culture raised by elites in the sixties and seventies. Then too preliminary social science evidence was treated

as unassailable proof that reason was on the side of divorce – easy and often. Children, we were told, after a brief

period of crisis, recuperated and indeed did better when parents divorced.” After many years of data we can conclude

the soothsayers of divorce were wrong. Gallagher, “A Reality Waiting to Happen,” 11.

26

Children will be taught conflicting values

Just because the law changes in legalizing SSM, it would not automatically follow that

everyone would agree that such unions are moral or acceptable. Many (mostly religious) groups

would still maintain major reservations in accepting SSM as an alternative and legitimate

expression of marriage. The children will go to school where they will be taught SSM is just as

legitimate as traditional marriage, but then go home, church, synagogue, mosque, etc., and be

taught the opposite. Any teacher that refuses to teach that SSM is a valid alternative (for

whatever reason) will be punished for discrimination. This will lead to the demand for more

religious schooling and a further fracturing of society as some of its members will be sequestered

from the broader public.82

Now, it is not necessarily a bad thing that children are taught various values. Indeed, this

is one of the benefits of living in a pluralistic society – there are many different values and

viewpoints for examining those values. The value of pluralism is also its downside in that not

everyone shares the same values. Some values are held more highly than others, and others are

simply despised. Some parents simply do not want their children to be inculcated with certain

values that conflict with their personal beliefs. At issue is the fact that SSM will demand public

support and approval and not just tolerance. Some people will not be able to reconcile their

religious views that homosexual unions are immoral with the legal demand to support and

legitimize such unions. Conflicts will need to be resolved on a public scale (which will most

likely not be civil), and children will be caught in the middle between private/religious values

that are at odds with the public values. Some parents will sequester their children from society to

Nathanson and Young, n.28.82

27

prevent these values from affecting their children. The effect will be a fracturing of society on a83

potentially large scale, with children as the losers.84

Effects on males

Males need a healthy “masculine” identity. If males have an “unhealthy” identity they

tend to be destructive “not only for men themselves but also for women, children, and thus for

society as a whole.” Men are being systematically (though not necessarily intentionally)85

removed as an essential component of society. SSM would only reinforce the idea that men are86

not needed. Nathanson and Young note “Over the past few decades, we have seen a resurgence87

of machismo in its most toxic form. To many boys and men now, it seems clear that even a

negative identity is better than no identity at all. . . . Because fatherhood is the one remaining

source of a healthy masculine identity, legalizing gay marriage . . . would legitimate the notion

We can see this today in the rise in private schools and the increase of homeschooling in America. From83

1999 to 2007 homeschooling increased 74%. “Fast Facts,” http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91 (accessed

February 9, 2012). Private schooling in 2007 accounted for about 12% of all students up from 10% in 1993. “Fast

Facts,” http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=6 (accessed February 9, 2012). Here is an article from someone

living in Massachussets who disagrees with the state’s marriage laws – notice the parallels mentioned in this essay,

“What Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Has Done to Massachusetts,”

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html (accessed February 22, 2012).

In regards to Christian religious education, I am convinced that so long as New Testament translations84

identify homosexuality as a sin on the level of idolatry, there will be no “peaceful” resolution to the social issue.

Nathanson and Young.85

Glorification of single-motherhood; the popularity of sperm banks; and the rise of other artificial86

reproductive technologies sans males all reinforce the idea that men are unnecessary components of society.

Nathanson and Young. One side effect is that men who do not have a father in their life suffer87

tremendously, but SSM will promote and encourage fatherless homes. Popenoe has noted that men without fathers

tend to be a danger to themselves and society. They are more prone to aggressive and violent behavior, they are more

promiscuous and tend towards drug use. In general, they tend to make up the majority of societal delinquents.

Popenoe, War Over the Family, 129.

28

that fathers are unnecessary.” If SSM passes it is not unreasonable to assume that the number of88

absentee fathers will increase. Since society will no longer privilege a status that values the role

of a father, there will be no incentive to encourage male participation with their offspring. Since

society will consider men and women as interchangeable, there would be nothing inherently

valuable for children to be raised by both a male and female. Indeed, in a society preoccupied

with fairness for the adults, more public funding will be needed to go to families without fathers

to make up the economic shortfall. The role of fathers, which is already bleak, will continue to

worsen over time. Given the social ills that result from the epidemic of “fatherlessness” (both89

for men and children), it seems unwise to adopt policies that reinforce this trend. While it is90

wise not to increase the likely-hood of “fatherlessness,” it is not exactly clear what needs to be

done to reverse the trend. Would repealing no-fault divorce or adopting some pro-family/father

policies stem the tide? This is something I cannot answer.91

Anyone that disagrees with SSM will be punished

Ironically, should SSM pass, those that were once pleading for societal tolerance to their

chosen lifestyle, will become strongly intolerant to anyone that disapproves of their state

endorsed union. Teachers that refuse to legitimate SSM as being equal to traditional marriage

Nathanson and Young.88

Ibid.89

Gallagher, “A Reality Waiting to Happen,” 12.90

Popenoe suggests a two-tier divorce system: 1) keep the current “no fault divorce” in place for couples91

that do not have minor children; but 2) “marriages with [minor] children would be dissolvable only by mutual

agreement or on grounds that clearly involve a wrong by one party against the other, such as desertion or physical

abuse. Longer waiting periods for divorcing couples with children might also be called for, combined with some

form of mandatory marriage counseling or marital education.” Popenoe, War Over the Family, 130-131.

29

will be punished or fired. Because SSM will be a legally legitimate alternative, anyone publicly

opposed to SSM will be charged with “hate speech” and punished under the law. A few months92

after legalizing SSM in Canada bill C-250 was passed which criminalizes any speech that does

not legitimize SSM. “Any religious community that takes a stand against gay marriage is likely93

to face public harassment, the hostility of popular culture, and so on.” People’s individual94

convictions will be challenged by SSM and if they do not comply with what the law deems

acceptable, punishment will be doled out.

Academic research will be stunted

Not only will (grade) school teachers be punished if they do not teach the legitimacy of

SSM, but colleges and universities will be affected as well. It will be difficult to get grants to

research the effects of redefining marriage, and even if a grant is awarded, if the results do not

This is actually taking place in Canada. The Canadian Supreme court is considering whether religious92

views on homosexuality violate Canada’s hate speech laws. See “Supreme Court of Canada Homosexual ‘Hate

Speech’ Case Could Be Decisive for Religious Freedom,”

www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-of-canada-anti-gay-hate-speech-case-could-be-decisive-for-rel/ (accessed

February 6, 2012). The same has happened in Sweden “Free Speech in Sweden,”

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/538 (accessed February 6, 2012) and the issue has come up in England (among

other places). See “Ban on Anti-Gay Hate Speech Denounced as ’Thought Crimes’ in UK,”

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98998 (accessed February 6, 2012).

This is an issue that is coming to the United States.

“A Body Blow to Free Speech,” National Post, May 19, 2004, A21. Quoted in Stanton and Maier, 42. See93

also “Hate Speech in Canada,” http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm (accessed February 13, 2012).

Nathanson and Young. On a personal note, a friend of mine (Frank Turek) was fired as a consultant from94

Cisco Systems and Bank of America because he holds a traditional view of marriage. His views on marriage were

never mentioned in his seminars and he always received “very high” marks for his work. A manager attending a

seminar “googled” his name, saw his writings, and complained to management. He was dismissed shortly thereafter.

Both Cisco and Bank of America have since apologized and stated that they were in the wrong, but neither has asked

him back (Bank of America says he is still in “good standing,” but until they reschedule a seminar, this is a mere

pleasantry). See “Bank of America, Cisco Back Down After Firing Traditional Marriage Supporter,”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bank-of-america-cisco-back-down-after-firing-traditional-marriage-supporter/

(accessed February 22, 2012).

30

line up with the popular notion that SSM is just as legitimate, then their research will be

considered discriminatory and it will be difficult to publish the results in peer reviewed journals.

This can be especially devastating to someone trying to achieve tenure. As the saying goes about

academia you “publish or perish.” As such, academics will be less likely to research this field as

to avoid censorship. Some academics have already been intimidated doing research in this area,

and there is no reason to think this would not continue. As Nathanson and Young point out “If

sexual orientation were protected by ‘hate laws,’ moreover, research would be shut down

altogether.”95

Polarization of society

In line with the forgoing conversation, should SSM be legalized society will become

polarized, immediately in some areas and eventually in others. Immediately the effects will be

felt amongst religious communities that do not (can not?) approve of homosexual unions. It is

not farfetched to imagine that if these communities were forced to celebrate/participate and

condone such unions, that hostile reactions will result. If these communities are not allowed to

disapprove of these unions but are forced by law to perform ceremonies or face civil action,

would we not expect a less than warm reception to such laws? For at this point, it would not be a

matter of toleration of other’s values, but participation by force. 96

While there could be the immediate polarization of society along moral and religious

lines, there is also the eventual threat of a polarization along biological lines. Nathanson and

Nathanson and Young, n.28.95

Nathanson and Young.96

31

Young hypothesize, “If culture defines equality as sameness, then the most obvious way to create

it would be, in effect, to eliminate biological asymmetry.” Men and women are biologically97

different, hence, there is an inequality “built-in” (if you will) in our very biology. If this could be

bypassed, however, and if we could mitigate this inequality through technology, then this could

create a polarization in society based on biology alone. Should we develop a technology that can

simulate parthenogenesis (fertilizing an egg without the use of sperm) men would be cut from the

picture altogether. Likewise, if we develop an ex-utero technology or artificial womb, women

would not be needed either. Given that homosexual couples cannot naturally have children

between themselves, these technologies will eliminate the need for the other sex in the

procreation of children. Nathanson and Young lament, “Stated in these terms, the prospect looks

less appealing than many people would have imagined; either eliminate one sex to create equality

or eliminate the distinctive feature of one sex to correct for the other’s biological inequality.”98

Should this become a customary practice society will be fragmented in a way that has never

before occurred in history.

Special “concessions” will be given to same-sex couples from the government for reproductionpurposes

The most obvious difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples is

that on the whole, heterosexual couples can procreate. No homosexual couple will ever produce

Ibid., n.29.97

Ibid.98

32

children naturally. Now, a major push for SSM is on the grounds that it is not “fair” that99

homosexuals cannot marry. That is, as a society, we value equality to such a degree that justice

virtually demands that homosexuals be allowed to marry.

This emphasis on equality and fairness, however, will result in government (i.e., tax

payer) funds being allocated to gay couples that cannot conceive children for the expressed

purpose of reproductive technologies. Why? Because it is not “fair” that only heterosexual

couples are able to produce children. Many homosexual couples that want children, but cannot

afford to go through adoption (or some other reproductive avenue like surrogacy), will petition

the government to cover the costs associated with adopting (or creating) a child. It is easy enough

for a lesbian couple to have a child – sperm banks are readily available. But gay couples have

fewer (and more expensive) options. Because gay couples are “differently situated” in regards to

procreation, in fairness, the government owes them some concessions. Should the government

refuse, then this could be grounds for discrimination against gay couples. “When gay men find

themselves with fewer reproductive possibilities than gay women, they will almost certainly file

charges of systematic discrimination against them.” 100

Reply to Some Arguments For Same-Sex Marriage

It is time to consider some popular arguments in favor of SSM, and provide comments.

The first argument to consider is that two loving people should have the right to have their union

legitimized by law. Next, the claim that SSM is the functional equivalent to infertile heterosexual

It could be argued that this one fact is proof enough that homosexual unions can never in fact be truly99

equal with heterosexual unions. The ability to create new life has historically been a major and defining mark of what

identifies a marriage.

Nathanson and Young, n.30.100

33

couples will be examined. The argument that children just need a loving and stable home, not

necessarily a heterosexual home is discussed next. Consideration for the charge that banning

SSM is discrimination follows. Lastly, the argument that SSM allows equality for all will be

investigated.

Love Between Two People Should be Celebrated

Much of the biographical literature promoting homosexual relationships in general (and

SSM in particular) deals in the rhetoric of love and acceptance, finding happiness and one’s self,

and a general sense of hope for the future. There is a not-so subtle plea for the reader (and101

society) to just accept them for who they are. Why can’t everyone else just let them relish the fact

they have found someone with whom they want to spend their life? For the purposes of this

essay, why can’t society recognize their commitment by allowing SSM? Their’s is a love to be

celebrated and promoted. Right?

Love certainly is something to be celebrated. It should not be taken for granted when we

find someone to share our most intimate thoughts and desires. We should cherish those moments

spent with someone who “knows us better than we know ourselves.” This is fine and good as far

as it goes. However, I am not yet convinced that a love two people share should necessarily have

the state sanction their union. The state as an institution for the benefit of its citizens must decide

For some examples of this biographical literature see, Chivas Sandage, “Gay Marriage Takes Heart: One101

Couple’s Story,” in Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum

(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 109-110; Barbara Cox, “A (Personal) Essay on Same-Sex Marriage,” in

Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY:

Prometheus Books, 2004), 111-113; Lindsy Van Gelder, “A Lesbian Family,” in Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral

and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 117-121;

and Jane Doe, “I Left My Husband for the Woman I Love,” in Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate ed.

Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 123-127.

34

what best meets the needs for the society at large. Historically, what has been in the best interest

of the state is to legitimize, encourage, and privilege traditional marriage. The state needs

traditional marriage. The state does not need to “celebrate” traditional marriage, but it does

encourage it because it needs men and women to be united. Further, (as discussed above) the side

effects of legalizing SSM may be more than society can handle. Is society ready to debate the

merits of polygamy and incest? Could society provide Social Security checks to multiple spouses

as beneficiaries? Is society ready to levy lawsuits and fines (or jail time) against those who

disagree with SSM and speak openly about it?

Marriage is more than just about love. It is about obligation and commitment. Historically

and cross-culturally it was about having and raising children. Love and emotional gratification

are certainly one of it’s recent functions, but historically and cross-culturally love has not even

been relevant. It used to be thought that a couple could come to love each other, but it was not102

love that initially made the marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage is No Different Than Infertile Heterosexual Couples

It is sometimes argued that homosexual couples are functionally equivalent to infertile

heterosexual couples. Just as society recognizes these infertile relationships, so too should103

society recognize SSM.

While there is certainly some merit to this claim, it appears to be an oversimplification of

the issue. First, the “norm” for marriage is to produce children. This is what society expects to

Interestingly, this focus on the couple’s emotional needs coincides with the decline in birth rates in102

Western society. Nathanson and Young.

Andrew Sullivan, “Virtually Normal,” in Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate ed. Robert103

M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 205-206.

35

happen. Couples that do not produce children are not condemned by society, but they are most

definitely outside the “norm.” Remember, marriage is primarily for the generation and nurturing

of future citizens. Which in turn is primarily for communal needs, not individual needs. 104

Second, in some traditions, the lack of children has been the exact grounds for divorce or

annulment. The “norm” for society is to have children, to be childless is the “exception.” And we

make laws based on the “norms” not the “exceptions.” To keep the “norm” for many childless

couples societies have sanctioned additional wives, concubines, surrogate mothers, or even

allowed wives of infertile men to sleep with fertile men. Our society in keeping with this trend

has surrogate mothers and sperm banks. But as Nathanson and Young state, “These measures

mitigate the suffering of married people in unusual circumstances but not by undermining

marriage itself as the norm.” SSM undermines (reproductive) marriage as the norm because it105

is absolutely impossible a child would result from such a union, whereas in some childless

heterosexual couples there are no children by choice.

Third, even in cases where the heterosexual couple is simply infertile, they still play an

important role in the stabilization of society. They signify an institution that brings men and

women together. They symbolize the normative relationship by which society is able to survive.

As such, in one sense, “yes” same-sex couples are “functionally equivalent” to infertile couples –

they both cannot produce children. In another sense, however, they are not functionally

equivalent in that they symbolize different types of relationships that interact with society.

Whatever benefit same-sex couples may offer society as a symbol, it is certainly not the same as

Nathanson and Young.104

Ibid.105

36

infertile couples that bring men and women together in a communal institution sanctioned by

society.106

Some Gay Couples Have Children, Besides Children Need Stability in Parents, Not NecessarilyMale and Female

Same-sex couples have children – this is an undeniable fact. Some of these children are

from previous heterosexual relationships. Others have been adopted or acquired through some

reproductive technology. One thing is for sure, whether gay or straight, there is a general desire to

have a family and raise children. This topic is particularly interesting legally as many states argue

that same-sex couples are unfit to raise children. As such, it can be difficult for same-sex couples

to adopt or gain custody of biological children. Many opponents of SSM argue that107

homosexual parents will lead to some sort of deviancy or disadvantage for children that are

raised in these households. The American Psychological Association (APA) has been consulted

in regard to the effects of same-sex couples and the children they raise. Charlotte Patterson

summarizes the results as follows:

There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents orthat psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men iscompromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single studyhas found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respectrelative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests thathome environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided byheterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.108

Ibid.106

Charlotte J. Patterson, “Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Summary of Research Findings” in107

Lesbian & Gay Parenting (Washington, D.C.: APA Press, 2005), 65-70.

Ibid., 15. 108

37

This conclusion has been drawn from several researchers and the results seem absolute.109

By way of reply there are a couple of things to note. First, as even Patterson states in her

own report “research on lesbian and gay parents and children . . . is still limited in extent.” She110

goes on to note that very little research has been done on children with gay fathers; nor is there

much research by way of the effects of gay parenting on adolescence and young adulthood;

finally, she notes the lack of longitudinal studies. Hence, while she is optimistic in regards to111

the quality of parenting of same-sex couples (given the current data), she admits there is simply a

lack of information to have a full view of the situation.

The second thing to note is in regards to some of the studies Patterson utilizes to reach

her conclusion. Patrick Lee and Robert P. George comment that the studies show serious

methodological flaws such as small sample sizes, selective data subject to slanting,

“unrepresentative samples,” and (as Patterson herself noted) lack of longitudinal studies. The112

studies cited by Patterson (and Salzman and Lawler) use (at most) several dozen individuals in

any given study, which is relatively small when compared with studies of “at-risk” children that

survey more than 34,000 individuals. Likewise, many of the studies cited by Patterson did not113

measure “clearly discernible data such as infant mortality rate, depression, school dropouts,

arrests, drug abuse” etc. which are hallmarks of large-scale studies. Instead the “studies relied on

Salzman and Lawler, 229-230, 319 n.82.109

Patterson, 15. 110

Ibid.111

Lee and George, 659.112

Ibid.113

38

subjective reporting, often based only on the parents’ recall.” Other studies compared unlike114

data. For example, some studies compared same-sex couples still living together, versus

heterosexual parents that were separated. Thus, the (lack of) quality data due to methodological115

concerns seriously mitigates Patterson’s optimistic conclusion.

This information should caution both opponents and proponents of SSM. First, all-in-all

the data regarding the quality of same-sex parenting and its effects on children is ambiguous at

this time. While what studies have been completed are promising for proponents of SSM, they

are wrong to point to this as conclusive proof that same-sex parenting is exactly the same as

heterosexual parenting. Likewise, opponents of SSM are wrong to assume that the data thus116

gathered is wholly worthless (as some are wont to do). As such, a mediating position is to117

recognize that more information and data is needed before a final decision can be made.

However, even though more data is needed, there are things we do know in regard to children

and parenting. It must be stated, that the issue here is not whether a same-sex couple can be

loving parents for their child(ren) – it is generally agreed that they can. The issue is not can

children from a same-sex partnership become well adjusted and productive agents in society – it

seems they can. The issue is are same-sex couples a good (acceptable?) option for raising

Ibid.114

Ibid.115

Same-sex parenting has more the hallmarks of step-families than traditional families, and as David116

Popenoe has noted the presence of a surrogate parent (step-father or equivalent) is not the same as a biological father

regarding impact on children. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 126.

For example, the oft debated and quoted claims of University of Virginia sociologist Steven Nock who117

testified via affidavit for Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada claimed all studies regarding same-sex parenting

had at least one serious flaw and none were conducted by standard research practices. Lee and George, 659.

39

children? Thus far, the answer appears to be “yes.” Homosexual parents may not be an “ideal”118

situation for children, but it is certainly seems acceptable and many times good. Indeed, more

data is needed and it is not clear to what extent same-sex parenting compares to heterosexual

parenting (all things being equal). However, I hesitate to say that society should encourage119

homosexual parenting the way that it needs to encourage heterosexual parenting by legal

incentives. I refer the reader above regarding argumentation that it is preferable for children to120

have both a mother and a father.

Banning Same-Sex Marriage is Discrimination

It is not uncommon to see the claim that discrimination against SSM is the same as racial

discrimination in not allowing blacks and whites to marry. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 in

Loving v. Virginia that racial discrimination in marriage was unconstitutional, likewise

This is a more nuanced claim than is normally made (i.e., are same-sex couples the best for children?).118

Part of the problem here is that it is clear that many same-sex couples deeply love their children and are raising them

as best they can. As such, does society want to do away with a situation that is not “ideal” (like a heterosexual

couple) in order to preserve the “ideal”? In many ways, this seems unlikely given that a loving home (whether gay or

straight) is better than no home for adopted children. This is balanced against the larger message that homosexual

relationships are just as valuable for society as heterosexual relationships. How does an opponent of SSM balance

this? There is an obvious social need (children that need parents) and there is a proposed solution to that need (same-

sex couples wanting children). Society (as discussed above) has a vested interest, however, in prioritizing

traditional/natural families, but this does not rule out the possibility of allowing same-sex couples to raise children.

Popenoe agrees with this assessment. He notes that in heterosexual and homosexual relationships it119

seems as though someone adopts the masculine and feminine roles in regards to children (the role can sometimes

switch, but it is still there). He further notes that we simply do not have enough data at this point to definitively say

whether this is beneficial or not. David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood

and Marriage are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1995), 147.

Popenoe notes “does it make a difference whether or not the father is biologically related to the child?120

According the available evidence, the answer is a resounding yes.” Further, he notes the increased dangers for

children in homes with step-fathers. Popenoe, Life Without Father, 150. The implications of this regarding

homosexual parenting (which is closer to step-parenting) are obvious. Biological fathers are the preferred (but not

necessarily only) method for raising children. Again, more data is needed to have a more complete picture of the

situation.

40

discrimination against SSM is also unconstitutional and immoral. 121

Interracial marriage is not the same as SSM. No one can change their “race,” but some

people have changed their sexual orientation. The fact that this has happened just once shows122

the comparison between homosexuality and race is not exactly the same. No one has been able123

to change their race – no matter how hard they try. Indeed, the argument that SSM is the same as

interracial marriage is based on a reductive analogy “it assumes that all those who oppose gay

marriage, like all those who oppose interracial marriage are bigots.” While that may be true for124

some people it certainly is not true for all. Further, as Nathanson and Young explain,

Marriage between people of different races was indeed banned in the American Southbecause of racism. But that was one example of a larger phenomenon [i.e., endogamy]. . .. Endogamy cannot be considered a universal feature of marriage and should not,therefore, be required by law in a diverse society. Marriage between men and womenreally is a universal feature, both historically and anthropologically. 125

In reality, the Loving case did not redefine marriage, rather it affirmed marriage. It affirmed that

historically and cross-culturally interracial marriage has happened and does happen. SSM, on the

other hand, seeks to do something that no society (until recently) has ever accepted on a massive

Dudley Rose, “Same-Sex Marriage: The Theologies Can Vary,” in Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and121

Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 195-197.

I hesitate to make too much of this, but it should be noted that Columbia professor Robert L. Spitzer122

concluded that it is possible for some homosexuals to become heterosexual. This is rare, but can happen. As such,

opponents to homosexuality/SSM make too much of Spitzer’s work when they overstate that all homosexuals can

become heterosexuals. Likewise, proponents of homosexuality/SSM make too little of his work by dismissing that

the people who switched orientations were never homosexual in the first place. Again, the middle road seems best.

Though (very) rare, it is possible for some (certainly not all) homosexuals to become heterosexual. Robert L. Spitzer,

“Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change From

Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32 (2003): 403-417.

Indeed, it should be remembered that many homosexuals throughout history married people of the123

opposite sex and maintained families.

Nathanson and Young.124

Ibid.125

41

scale. Further, even if not allowing SSM were discrimination (and an evil), it may very well be

the lesser of two evils as opposed to allowing SSM. Strengthening traditional marriage will

stabilize society, but as argued above SSM will further weaken society. A stable society is good

for everyone – gay and straight. “Gay people have as much to lose as straight people, therefore,

by weakening [society].” 126

Same-Sex Marriage Allows Equality For All

Evan Wolfson shares multiple stories of same-sex couples denied (what seems to be) the

most basic of human courtesies, simply because they are unmarried. Couples (with children)127

have been threatened with eviction. Parents are not allowed to pick a child up from school

because their partner is actually considered the legal guardian. Couples are denied pension, social

security, and health benefits – all because they are in a same-sex relationship. This seems – prima

facie – unfair and unjust. Why cannot same-sex couples be treated equally under the law?

Everyone agrees equality is a good thing. Further, it needs to be acknowledged and

rectified that same-sex couples be accorded some basic dignity in relation to raising children and

housing. The examples listed by Wolfson are proper examples of something that should be

corrected. Does it therefore follow that same-sex couples be afforded the same status as128

Ibid.126

Evan Wolfson, “All Together Now,” in Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate eds. Lynn D. Wardle,127

mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 3-4, 7-8, and Evan

Wolfson, “Enough Marriage to Share: A Response to Maggie Gallagher,” in Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A

Debate eds. Lynn D. Wardle, Mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge (Westport, CT:

Praeger, 2003), 25.

Though this must be balanced with the rights of others. For example, if a private apartment complex has128

a policy that prohibits homosexual inhabitants (as silly a policy as that may be) it is the owner’s right to prohibit or

evict tenants that violate such a statute.

42

marriage? I submit that it does not. It is possible (though not necessarily easy) to alleviate the

conditions that give rise to the unacceptable actions taken against the couples mentioned by

Wolfson. It is often difficult to balance the needs of individuals with the needs of society, and the

fact remains that society needs to privilege and encourage heterosexual marriage.129

It is often stated, that homosexuals are treated equally and are allowed to marry so long

as they marry someone of a different gender. Though this statement is true, I think it has been

used disingenuously (by some opponents of SSM) and it has been completely ignored (by some

proponents of SSM). Some opponents of SSM make this statement as if it should end all debate

of the “equality” issue, and some proponents of SSM overstate their case in implying they cannot

get married absolutely. Given the contemporary debate and what is being sought, it is best to

recognize the statement is true as far as it goes, but it is greatly limited in what it proves. This

statement, though, does not have to devolve into a rhetorical stalemate. It is true in that

historically homosexuals have married members of the opposite sex and parented children,

though they carried-out their homosexual urges outside the home. As Nathanson and Young130

point out “Many people, both gay and straight, have married either partially or wholly for reasons

other than the idealized ones. . . . The fact is that these marriages, like others, can serve important

communal needs. At the very least, they affirm the symbolism of marriage as an institution that

brings men and women together in the interest of society as a whole.”131

A stronger argument against SSM in relation to equality is to point out the logical

Nathanson and Young.129

Ibid.130

Ibid.131

43

outcome of such argumentation. As noted above, if SSM is needed to promote equality and

fairness, then so too is polygamy and incest. American society may be able to stomach polygamy

(though it remains to be seen if our political/social structure can handle the demands of such

unions), but it does not seem likely that American society would be willing (at this point) to

welcome incestuous relationships. But, if the argument for the equality of SSM is to be followed

through, this is where it leads. 132

The inconvenient fact of the matter is that homosexual unions can never be completely

equal to heterosexual unions. No homosexual union will ever bring forth children, but the (vast)

majority of heterosexual unions will. Society expects and needs heterosexual unions in order to

continue, but it does not need homosexual unions (though it can certainly allow for it). This,

however, does not mean that there needs to be systematic discrimination against homosexual

couples. Maggie Gallagher has argued that many of the benefits that homosexuals seek in

marriage are already available without marriage. She says:

The demand for same-sex-marriage befits is not likely based on filling a huge unmet needfor practical benefits. Children or adults are not being deprived of health care en massebecause law and social policies favor married couples over unrelated cohabitors. Instead,the drive for same-sex-marriage appears to be a largely symbolic cultural issue; the goal(or at any rate the main effect) is not filling a need for health insurance or other practicalbenefits, but making a powerful social statement: Same-sex unions are the functionalequivalent of marriage, traditionally understood, and should be treated as such by law andpublic policy.133

Surely as a society we can develop provisions and policies for many of the remaining inequalities

that acknowledge the particular living situation of same-sex couples but at the same time still

Ibid.132

Gallagher, “Normal Marriage,” 20.133

44

privilege traditional marriage – since traditional marriage is what society needs.

Conclusion

Chesterton made the insightful point it is often said we cannot turn back the clock. But

“The simple and obvious answer is ‘You can.’” A clock can and should be turned back when it is

keeping bad time. In many ways marriage in America (and throughout the world) is keeping134

“bad time.” Unfortunately for those in favor of traditional marriage, this clock is more like a

sundial and by its nature it cannot be turned back. At best the proponent of traditional marriage

can wait for the next day. American culture has already redefined marriage in practice, all that

remains is to ratify the redefinition through law. Proponents of traditional marriage will only win

the day if there is a massive cultural change that embraces the traditional view. This, however, on

the most optimistic time line would take several generations for the traditional understanding to

take root. This is no easy task, and may be impossible at this point. Given the tidal wave of

generation X, Y, and Z that overwhelmingly accepts homosexual behavior and the arguments for

SSM, when these persons take control of society in making laws and influencing policies, it is

(essentially) a forgone conclusion that SSM will happen. It is only a matter of time.135

As an outrageous proposal, before allowing SSM to become law, we should see how this

experiment works in countries that have already passed such laws. Let us evaluate the effects on

those societies before we irreversible affect this one. Had we been able to see forty years into the

future to see the destructive effects of “no fault divorce,” there may have been reconsideration

G. K. Chesterton, What’s Wrong With the World (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1918), 41.134

Wolfsan draws attention to various statistics that indicate this movement towards a cultural acceptance of135

homosexual behavior as well as SSM. Wolfson, “All Together Now,” 4-5.

45

before passing this well-intentioned-but-poorly-thought-out law. The obvious downside to this

proposal is that it will take about forty years to compile the necessary data to make appropriate

and sound judgments and most people will not stand to wait that long. Likewise, this proposal

will have the same emotional impact as telling a group of slaves to wait forty years so we can

determine what the effects of ending slavery will have upon society. This is not likely to

happen. 136

The slippery-slope arguments used in this essay need to be tempered in that very few

predicted outcomes would be immediately felt. The vast majority of the arguments are dealing

with effects that will take multiple decades to become reality. Hence, if SSM were legalized

tomorrow, there are three areas I think would be almost immediately impacted: 1) the push for

polygamy; 2) the push to criminalize “hate speech” for anyone that does not agree with SSM; and

3) vocal (and possibly hostile) reaction from certain religious segments. Other than these three

areas, the arguments put forward by this essay would probably be decades before the full

implications of legalizing SSM would be realized at the societal level. I highly doubt legalizing

SSM would immediately usher in the apocalypse (contrary to some SSM opponents).

This essay has attempted to show that the arguments against SSM are at least reasonable.

I find myself in agreement with David Popenoe when he states:

On the other end of the spectrum, statistically very few homosexuals are affected by not being allowed to136

marry. Even in provinces that allow SSM there is an initial “jolt” of same-sex unions, but these drop off significantly.

Indeed, the data we have thus far regarding the homosexual population that are allowed to marry shows that very few

choose to actually do so. In all areas assessed it is less that 20% of the homosexual population that gets married. As

such, policies are being promoted that will directly benefit less than 20% of less than 5% of the U.S. population (less

than 1% of the total population) but will have negative consequences for the future of our society. See Maggie

Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, “Demand for Same-Sex Marriage: Evidence From the United States, Canada, and

Europe,” in iMAPP Policy Brief 3 (2006), http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf (accessed

February 22, 2012).

46

The position advocated here is that society should, in support of personal liberty, toleratea wide range of sexual practices, including homosexuality. In support of the family,however, society should not necessarily affirm every aspect of homosexuality and thehomosexual lifestyle as the moral or social equivalent of heterosexuality. As the basis offamily life, and thus the key to both social order and societal continuation, heterosexualityshould continue to command a high status as a social value.137

At a time when society has some real issues that are directly related to the breakdown of

traditional marriage, we should not adopt policies that will further exacerbate the problem.

Traditional marriage should be strengthened at this point in time and SSM does not do that

despite cries to the contrary. Popenoe agrees, 138

Government policies should be designed to favor married, childrearing couples. Somecritics argue that the federal government should not involve itself in sensitive moralissues or risk stigmatizing alternative lifestyles [or it should treat them all the same]. Butrecognizing such alternatives does not require treating them as equivalent to marriage. . . .A position on the need for children to have two committed parents, a father and amother, during their formative years is hardly . . . radical . . . . 139

Opposition to SSM does not need to devolve into name calling, finger wagging, or any other such

vindictive behavior. Likwise, proponents of SSM do not need to shut down all dialogue by

resorting to ad hominem arguments and accuse all opponents of SSM as homophobic and

bigoted. Some are, but many are not. I recognize the emotional attachment people have to this

issue, but it is my hope we can have a modicum of civil discourse.

Finally, something must be said of the theological implications of the foregoing

discussion. It must be recognized that it is God who is in control of the flow of history. Whether

Popenoe, War Over the Family, 81.137

“Marriage must be reestablished as a strong social institution. The father’s role must also be redefined in138

a way that neglects neither historical models nor the unique attributes of modern societies, the new roles for women,

and the special qualities that men bring to childrearing.” Popenoe, War Over the Family, 130.

Ibid., 131 (emphasis added).139

47

SSM is legalized or not and whether SSM is moral or not, as a Christian I am convinced that

whatever the outcome God remains in control and works all things for the good to those called

according to His purposes in Christ (cf. Rom. 8:28). Societies are guided by the loving hand of

God, sometimes He raises them up and sometimes He brings them down. Our purpose as

believers and followers is not to be caught in the winds of change, but to be of sound character

and good will. In loving God and loving others we respond in action to what we believe God is

doing in the world. Regarding this debate, for proponents of SSM it is about honoring those who

share a special connection in love and how society needs to rejoice in that relationship. For

opponents to SSM it is about honoring an institution that they see as established by God for the

good of humanity and society. It is up to the individual to make their decision. For you do not

give an answer for your beliefs and actions to men, but to God who alone judges the heart.

Choose wisely.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, Barry D. “Relationship Innovation in Male Relationships” Sexualities 9 (2006): 5-26.

Bell, A. P. and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women.New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.

Chesterton, G. K. The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic. New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1930.

———. What’s Wrong With the World. New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1918.

Collett, Teresa Stanton. “Should Marriage Be Privileged? The State’s Interest in ChildbearingUnions.” In Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate. Eds. Lynn D. Wardle, markStrasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.152-161.

Cox, Barbara. “A (Personal) Essay on Same-Sex Marriage.” In Same-Sex Marriage: The Moraland Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY:Prometheus Books, 2004. 111-113.

Doe, Jane. “I Left My Husband for the Woman I Love.” In Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral andLegal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY: PrometheusBooks, 2004. 123-127.

Ford, Clellan S. and Frank A Beach. Patterns of Sexual Behavior. Westport, CT: GreenwoodPress, 1951.

Frayser, Suzanne G. Varieties of Sexual Experience: Anthropological Perspective on HumanSexuality. New York: Human Relations Area File Press, 1985.

Gallagher, Maggie. “A Reality Waiting to Happen: A Response to Evan Wolfson.” In Marriageand Same-Sex Unions: A Debate. Eds. Lynn D. Wardle, Mark Strasser, William C.Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. 10-12.

———. “Normal Marriage: Two Views.” in Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate. Eds.Lynn D. Wardle, Mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge.Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. 13-24.

48

49

——— and Joshua K. Baker, “Demand for Same-Sex Marriage: Evidence From the UnitedStates, Canada, and Europe.” In iMAPP Policy Brief 3 (2006),http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf (accessed February 22,2012).

George, Robert P. In Defense of Natural Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Jñanavira, Dharmachari.“Homosexuality in the Japanese Buddhist Tradition.” www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html (accessed February 6, 2012).

Kort, Joe. “Are Gay Male Couples Monogamous Ever After?” www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamous-ever-after (accessed February 13, 2012).

Kurtz, Stanley. “The Libertarian Question: Incest, Homosexuality, and Adultery.” In Same-SexMarriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. Eds. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum.Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004. 263-268.

Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The SocialOrganization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago:University ofChicago Press, 1994.

Lee, Patrick and Robert P. George. “Quaestio Disputata: What Male-Female ComplementarityMakes Possible: Marriage as a Two-in-One-Flesh Union.” Theological Studies 69 (2008):641-662.

Maguire, Daniel. “The Morality of Homosexual Marriage.” In Same-Sex Marriage: The Moraland Legal Debate. Eds. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY:Prometheus Books, 2004. 147-161.

McWhirter, David P. and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984.

Nathanson, Paul and Katherine K. Young. “Marriage à la mode: Answering the Advocates ofGay Marriage.” www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/mmmode.pdf (accessed January 30,2012).

Patterson, Charlotte J. “Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Summary of ResearchFindings.” In Lesbian & Gay Parenting. Washington, D.C.: APA Press, 2005.

Popenoe, David. Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriageare Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1995.

50

———. War Over the Family. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Pub., 2005.

Rinnert, Jim. “The Trouble with Gay Marriage.”www.inthesetimes.com/article/the_trouble_with_gay_marriage (accessed January 31,2012).

Rose, Dudley. “Same-Sex Marriage: The Theologies Can Vary.” In Same-Sex Marriage: TheMoral and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY:Prometheus Books, 2004. 195-197.

Sandage, Chivas. “Gay Marriage Takes Heart: One Couple’s Story.” in Same-Sex Marriage: TheMoral and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY:Prometheus Books, 2004. 109-110.

Salzman, Todd A. and Michael G. Lawler. The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed CatholicAnthropology. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2008.

Spitzer, Robert L. “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200Participants Reporting a Change From Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation.”Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32 (2003): 403-417.

Stanton, Glenn and Bill Maier. Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage andParenting. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Sullivan, Andrew. “Virtually Normal.” In Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate ed.Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004. 205-210.

Van de Ven, Paul, Pamela Rodden, June Crawford, and Susan Kippax. “A ComparativeDemographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men.” Journal of SexResearch 34 (1997): 349-360.

Van Gelder, Lindsy. “A Lesbian Family.” In Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debateed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004.117-121.

Wiederman, Michael W. “Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey.”Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 167-174.

Wolfson, Evan. “All Together Now.” In Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate eds. Lynn D.Wardle, mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge. Westport, CT:Praeger, 2003. 3-9.

51

———. “Enough Marriage to Share: A Response to Maggie Gallagher.” In Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate eds. Lynn D. Wardle, mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, andDavid Orgon Coolidge. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. 25-32.

“Ban on Anti-Gay Hate Speech Denounced as ’Thought Crimes’ in UK.”http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98998(accessed February 6, 2012).

“Bank of America, Cisco Back Down After Firing Traditional Marriage Supporter,”http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bank-of-america-cisco-back-down-after-firing-traditional-marriage-supporter/ (accessed February 22, 2012).

“A Body Blow to Free Speech,” National Post, May 19, 2004, A21. Quoted in Glenn Stantonand Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004)

“Fast Facts.” http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=6 (accessed February 9, 2012).

“Fast Facts.” http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91 (accessed February 9, 2012).

“Fertility Rate.”www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=total+fertility+rate+united+states#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:CAN&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en (accessed February 4, 2012).

“Fertility Statistics.”http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Fertility_statistics(accessed February 4, 2012).

“Free Speech in Sweden.” http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/538 (accessed February 6,2012).

“Hate Speech in Canada.” http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm (accessed February13, 2012).

“HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM).”www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/pdf/msm.pdf (accessed January 29, 2012).

“National Vital Statistics Report.” Vol. 60. Num. 1www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table16 (accessed February 13,2012).

52

“Same-Sex Couple Households.” www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf (accessedJanuary 29, 2012).

“‘Sister Wives’ Lawsuit: Federal Judge Rules TV Family Can Question Bigamy Statute.”www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/sister-wives-law-suit-bigamy_n_1255622.html(accessed February 5, 2012).

“Supreme Court of Canada Homosexual ‘Hate Speech’ Case Could Be Decisive for ReligiousFreedom.”www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-of-canada-anti-gay-hate-speech-case-could-be-decisive-for-rel/ (accessed February 6, 2012).

“What Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Has Done to Massachusetts,”http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html (accessed February22, 2012).